That is very much a correct
description, given the “neo-liberal”, “globalist” definition
of democracy as a condition of absence of resistance to domination by
global financial institutions; essentially as the non-existence of
regulations and the absence of a government. In the case
of Iran, the government was overthrown and replaced by a group of
bandits, many, like the anti-Iranian criminal Ebrahim Yazdi, educated
in the West, who established a mafia regime, which the media very
conveniently labeled “the Iranian government”, or simply “Iran”
or “Tehran”.

Using the term with an “Islamic”
prefix, then, could not be contradictory. In fact it's
complementary.

That understanding makes the following
paragraph on “democratic governments” vs. “dictatorial regimes”
somewhat easier to digest. He writes,

“Iran is, in many ways, a pioneer
of the changes that have been sweeping the region since the early
2010s. Tehran did not welcome the events in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya
for nothing, since all the dictatorial regimes were — if not
overtly pro-Western — clearly anti-Islamic.”

That's a corroboration of what we said
earlier in “Marketing 'revolutions'”, but note that Lukyanov must
paint the targeted states as “pro-Western...dictatorial regimes”
to justify the appeal of the newly installed “Islamic democracies”
as a natural consequence. Exactly what “pro-Western” means is
left unclear. It is left unclear for two good reasons.

First, it screens the correct term
“secular” from the reader's consideration. After all, as that
charlatan Johan Galtung put it (courtesy of “Democracy Now!”),
and Al Jazeera (That's the BBC operating under another name) hammers
in on an hourly basis, these are “Moslem countries”. Yet,
rejection by the modern individual, any modern individual anywhere,
of thousand year old “laws” from the deserts of Arabia does not
make that person “pro-Western”; it makes him or her a secular
individual. The calculation is that most Westerners, who are
themselves secular, are bound to sympathize with the victims of the
Islamists if they know them to be secular rather than “pro-Western.”

Second, it puts the Islamists and their
regimes in opposition to the “West”, whereas these regimes are
created by the “West”.

Given NATO's world-wide democratization
campaigns, personally, I think within our own lifetime, the Pentagon
and NATO will both progress from being implicitly identified, to being
explicitly labeled as human rights organizations.